Evolution write-in

Following from yesterday’s link to PZ Myers’ op-ed pieces, PZ tells us the Star Tribune is soliciting letters on the evolution ID debate:

An invitation to readers on ID/evolution.

We're interested in your thoughts on intelligent design, evolution, and their proper places in school curricula. Write us an e-mail of no more than 150 words and send it to [email protected], with the word "evolution" in the subject line. Be sure to include your name, address and telephone number so we can contact you if we decide to publish your response. Please reply by Monday, May 2.

Here’s a reply I just sent:

ID is not science. If it were, ID proponents wouldn’t be introducing legislation or appealing to the public to have ID taught as an alternative to evolution. They would be finding evidence for ID and presenting it in science journals to convince their peers of the validity of their ideas. In other words they would be doing science. But they aren’t doing science. They are doing theology and politics. They don’t have evidence so they seek to influence scientifically ignorant or religiously motivated parents and politicians to have their pseudo-science taught to school children who lack the grounding in science to tell the difference.

Science is done and evaluated by scientists, not by judges, lawyers, parents, schoolchildren or politicians. If ID proponents disagree with that they should stop pretending to be scientists.

Here’s another I might send:

A scientific theory such as evolution is an explanation for some observable facts; ID is just a series of criticisms of the theory of evolution.

A scientific theory does not consist of a series of criticisms of another theory even if those criticisms are valid (which they are not). For ID to be a theory, it would have to explain something about the designer. For example, who or what is the designer? Where are his (her?) designs and how did he produce them? How did he implement these designs? And most importantly, what does all the foregoing tell us about how the designer will behave in the future: what predictions can we make; what use can we make of the theory? ID tells us nothing, it’s an admission of defeat. That is not science and it should not be taught in science classes.

Feel free to click on the email link above and paste in any or all of one of those replies, although I believe individual replies will have more impact.

Comments

[Jayson]

In the last sentence in your second proposed e-mail you say "That is not science and it should not be taught in science classes." I think that is one of the key points for me. It should not be taught in a science class but rater in a theology class.

I admit there are problems with theology classes in grammar school (i.e. biased teachers). But theology classes at the college level are great. Even as a non believer and a skeptic I feel it is worthwhile to study religion practices and beliefs including ID.

[Rockstar]

Thank you for the heads up! I'm always willing to stand up to these people.

[AmericanPascal]

Regarding the “proven science of evolution” that I often hear, we should be cognizant of what exactly has been proven within the field of evolution. Some aspects of evolution such as the origins of DNA have only been “conjectured” at best. The evolutionary theory of the origins of DNA is by no means a scientific theory. Often biologists cross over freely and with ease from the realm of science into the realm of philosophy and back without realizing what they did.

When a biologist teaches that the origins of life came along by chance, then at that point the “scientist” is no longer on scientific soil, but has crossed over into the realm of unsubstantiated philosophy. How can this be accepted? Well, this is actually (horrors) a “belief” that we came into existence by “chance.” This is not science, and anyone who claims it to be science is doing an injustice to the scientific profession.

[Skeptico]

AmericanPascal:

1) You are referring to abiogenesis, not evolution.

2) Scientists are not saying life came along “by chance”.

3) Even if we ignore points 1) and 2) above, scientists are working on theories of the origin of life. That is what scientists do – they look for explanations for observable phenomena. Compare that with ID, where the discovery of an unexplained phenomenon (eg “life”) is the end of the road - they don’t know what happened and they will never look for an explanation because goddidit. That demonstrates the utter vacuousness of ID and explains why ID is not science.

[BronzeDog]

You may want to do your homework, Pascal.

[AmericanPascal]

Thanks for your response Skeptico.

In response to your item number 1:
Are you aware that standard for “abiogenesis” is achieved via an “evolutionary” process? (See http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/A/abiogen.html) Even though you are correct that the “study” is called abiogenesis, it still falls under the larger umbrella of general evolutionary science. But, your terminological precision is still welcomed nonetheless!

In response to your item number 2:
Since we are talking about abiogenesis specifically, whether one has leanings toward panspremia, or spontaneous generation, the “chance” component underlies both and cannot be ignored. (Let’s ignore theories of ET guidance for now – which may be supported by ID?) If life did not come along by chance, then how did it come along? The presumption is that it wasn’t guided by intelligence, therefore the conditions must have been right and the time had to be there to permit the “chance” of life to occur. Your blanket statement that “scientists are not saying life came along by chance,” is unsubstantiated as this is often the underlying presumption which guides much scientific research.

In response to your item number 3:
You have in fact confirmed what I was originally saying when you stated “scientists are working on theories of the origin of life.” Basically, there are currently only conjectures and hypotheses, and no real “scientific” theories. And even though the “approach” may be scientific, this does not mean that the underlying “belief” is scientific. The science being used to investigate abiogenesis is guided by an underlying philosophy -- which is often confused for the science!

In summary, abiogenesis is only a “study,” often directed by a philosophy that life was not designed; it is NOT a scientific theory even though many state their personal beliefs in support of its guiding philosophy.

p.s. – I, do my homework.

[Skeptico]

AmericalPascal:

Re: In response to your item number 1:
Are you aware that standard for “abiogenesis” is achieved via an “evolutionary” process?

Irrelevant – the original post was about whether ID should be taught as science. ID is not science, regardless of what the standards for abiogenesis might be.

Re: Since we are talking about abiogenesis specifically, whether one has leanings toward panspremia, or spontaneous generation, the “chance” component underlies both and cannot be ignored.

A “chance component” does not mean something happened “by chance”. In any case, no one is being taught how life originated, whether “by chance” or not, and it was not a subject of the post.

Re: You have in fact confirmed what I was originally saying when you stated “scientists are working on theories of the origin of life.” Basically, there are currently only conjectures and hypotheses, and no real “scientific” theories.

Agreed, but (one more time) this post was about whether ID or evolution should be taught in school science classes. I made no claim that abiogenesis should be taught in schools. However, I did make the point that scientists, unlike intelligent designists, were working on the answer to how life started. One day it may be a theory. But it will never be a theory from the proponents of ID since their answer is (paraphrasing), “we don’t know so it must have been God”.

Re: And even though the “approach” may be scientific, this does not mean that the underlying “belief” is scientific. The science being used to investigate abiogenesis is guided by an underlying philosophy -- which is often confused for the science!
In summary, abiogenesis is only a “study,” often directed by a philosophy that life was not designed;

I think you are criticizing science for only looking for naturalistic explanations. (If that’s not what you meant then apologies, but your paragraph was a little unclear.) Well, all that means is they are looking for an explanation that can be tested. The other methods (ie those from religious revelation) have always proved to be wrong.

ID is a vacuous dead end. Nothing you have said supports a different conclusion.

[BronzeDog]

If life did not come along by chance, then how did it come along?

The laws of chemistry and the law of truly large numbers, I would say. Chance was involved, but negated by the number of planets there are in the universe.

Your blanket statement that “scientists are not saying life came along by chance,” is unsubstantiated as this is often the underlying presumption which guides much scientific research.

Chance plays a role, but it is nowhere near as dominant as Creationists like to pretend.

Basically, there are currently only conjectures and hypotheses, and no real “scientific” theories. And even though the “approach” may be scientific, this does not mean that the underlying “belief” is scientific.

Considering that scientists can perform abiogensis in the lab, I'd say it's more than just conjecture. We aren't sure what the conditions were on Earth at the time, but the ease at which it occurs in experiments suggest that it's not a problem.

If the approach is scientific, the conclusions are also scientific. Science is an approach, and it's one that ID doesn't follow.

[AmericanPascal]

Bronze (my man) Dog, are you sure that: "scientists can perform abiogenesis in the lab"?

We must have missed this one. Maybe you are confusing this for the creation of amino acids or something else?

Is there a document out there that shows how we have created “DNA”? Mr. Skeptico and I just agreed that this really has not been proven, yet demonstrated. Look into it if you have the time and categorize what the experiments actually produced. Then this would be a good follow-up discussion.

Snoop it out dog...(we have to bring you up to silver)!

[Skeptico]

AmericanPascal:

He is some recent research that might be of interest to you.

It seems likely that DNA was preceded by RNA, which can also replicate. DNA is better than RNA at copying itself without errors, which is probably why DNA replaced RNA (by natural selection), although no one is certain.

No one knows for sure how RNA originally arose. But experiments do show that layered mineral deposits can attract, concentrate and link organic molecules, and that certain clays can act as “scaffolding” for assembling the molecular components of RNA – see Robert Hazen, “Life’s Rocky Start”, Scientific American April 2001.

The hypothesis goes that (1)neucleotides (sub units of RNA) link together to form RNA, then (2)RNA strands become housed inside a fatty acid membrane, that becomes like a cell (ie it could divide and grow). A clay, called montmorillonite, has been shown to do this. From my first link, above:

In the 1990s biochemist James Ferris of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute showed that montmorillonite can help create RNA. When he poured nucleotides onto the surface of the clay, the montmorillonite grabbed the compounds, and neighboring nucleotides fused together. Over time, as many as 50 nucleotides joined together spontaneously into a single RNA molecule. The RNA world might have been born in clay, Ferris argued, perhaps the clay that coated the ocean floor around hydrothermal vents.

“The thing that’s interesting is that there’s this one mineral that can get RNA precursors to assemble into RNA, and membrane precursors to assemble into membranes,” says Szostak. “I think that’s really remarkable.”

As Hanczyc and Fujikawa analyzed their new vesicles, they made an even more remarkable discovery. Some of the grains of montmorillonite actually wound up inside the vesicles.

Their next step was obvious. “It was very straightforward,” says Hanczyc. “You just mix the RNA with clay, and mix it with the fatty acids, and voilà, you have RNA on the clay particles inside the vesicles.”

Here was one possible way in which the pieces of the RNA world might have come together in cells that could grow and divide.

Not sure if that is quite “abiogenesis in the lab”, but it is getting close. Perhaps Bronze Dog has some more recent information. Note, I’m not saying this is a theory of abiogenesis yet, but at least you can see how some scientists are working on the question.

[BronzeDog]

That was one of the sorts of experiments I was referring to: Scientists can set up conditions that produce some of the vital building blocks of life.

We still don't know everything, but with progress like that going on, I see little reason for someone to declare the whole thing impossible.

We may not have a complete theory of abiogenesis yet, but some of the hypotheses seem to be quite promising.

[AmericanPascal]

Thanks for the articles. The June, 2004, article I believe to have read before. We all agree that we don’t have scientific proof (i.e., an actual demonstration) of abiogenesis. And we should appreciate the daunting task required to achieve this in a lab -- whether one believes that abiogenesis occurred naturally, or, alternatively, that life included a design component (some kind of “intervention,” or perhaps something along the idea of I.D.)

While a proponent of scientific discovery, I still must realize that even though we are accumulating a piecemeal understanding of certain “building-block” interactions, I would be making a leap of “faith” to say that life occurred without any intervention. This is the presumption in which many “scientists” extol today as a “theory.” But, this is more often than not, an extension of a belief system outside of science along the lines of Naturalism where there is nothing but nature and man – nature’s byproduct. If I were a Naturalist, then there would be no other possible option but to “believe” in abiogenesis as it is defined – there is no other possibility consistent with a Naturalist’s understanding of the universe! But this belief, without a “proof,” is still a belief. And stemming from this belief are additional conjectures aimed to support it (even though the belief may possibly be wrong).

In summary, while abiogenesis is being “discussed” in scientific terms, and is being grappled with via various “scientific” experiments, it is an unquestionable pillar of Naturalist faith which currently lies in the realm of philosophy. While anyone, scientist or layman, is permitted to have “faith” in Naturalism, what should not be permitted is the frequent error that occurs when their faith stands in the place of science. We really don’t even have enough forensic evidence at this point to substantiate abiogenesis. But if I were a Naturalist, I wouldn’t have any other options other than questioning my faith.

[Skeptico]

Re: I would be making a leap of “faith” to say that life occurred without any intervention.

So who intervened? A designer? Wouldn’t the designer have required an intervention, a designer? And who designed the designer’s designer? It never fails to amaze me how design proponents don’t believe life could have arisen without a designer, and yet they apparently have no problem with a designer who presumably poofed himself into existence out of nothing by magic.

I disagree with you entirely. The experiment with montmorillonite spontaneously forming RNA shows that life is most likely just chemistry – the inevitable linking together of carbon and other atoms in the way their structure dictates. That doesn’t require faith – much of this has already been observed.

Re: In summary, while abiogenesis is being “discussed” in scientific terms, and is being grappled with via various “scientific” experiments, it is an unquestionable pillar of Naturalist faith which currently lies in the realm of philosophy.

This is really just an appeal to other ways of knowing. Science has proved to be the most reliable method we know for evaluating claims and figuring out how the universe works. If the you claim there is a better method, it is up to you to justify that claim – something I’ve never seen anyone do. Scientists are investigating origins of life, and may one day find the answer. As I said before, the mystery of abiogenesis is the starting point for scientists – it’s the mystery to be worked on and solved. For Intelligent Designists it’s the end point –the intelligent designer did it, so we should stop looking. That’s a dead end. With that attitude we’d still think the Sun was dragged across the sky by God’s chariot.

[BronzeDog]

I would be making a leap of “faith” to say that life occurred without any intervention.

Thus far, I'd say it requires about as big a leap of faith as believing in the possibility of heavier-than-air flight machines after watching a bird. Well, maybe not quite that big a leap.

I'd say it'd have much better odds than an Intelligent but stupid Designer creating life with so many unexplained flaws using a technique that looks exactly like the jury-rigging evolution predicts and produces in computer algorithms.